The war on boys is a war on humanity

(Note: Be sure to see Marty Nemko’s comment in which he explains why it’s possible to publish articles (like his present one) that protest the treatment of boys, but not articles protesting the treatment of men, and in which he also describes the feminization of the work place.)

At VFR we talk about the liberal campaign to delegitimize, in the name of equality, the formative dimensions of human existence: the objectivity of truth, the distinctiveness of our own society as a particular and irreplaceable way of expressing that truth, and the natural and moral differences between human beings. Other than the steady marginalization of the West’s historic majority populations through open immigration, and the accompanying delegitimization of Western nationhood, there is no more fundamental aspect of this attack than the liberal culture’s debunking of the male. Writing in the New York Post, Marty Nemko of the National Organization for Men powerfully and movingly brings out the systematic hostility toward and demoralization of boys in our feminist controlled schools, a campaign that involves the simultaneous empowerment of girls. “Twenty years ago,” he writes, “most [boys] were confident and ambitious. Now, disproportionately, they’re despondent or angry. The girls, by contrast, more often feel the world is their oyster.”

Or, as I said a couple of months ago:

People are shaped by their society, their schools, to be a certain way. Young men today are shaped to be shapeless, demoralized sacks, and young women today are shaped to be self-assured, self-esteeming goddesses. The women are proud, the men are recessive. This is a deliberate product of the ideology that rules our society.

My only disagreement with Nemko is that he makes it seem as though the attack on boys were the whole problem. But of course boys turn into men; so the attack on boys is an attack on men. And men marry women and form families; so the attack on boys is an attack on families; and men are the natural leaders of society; so the attack on boys is an attack on society as a whole. And men are half the human race; so the attack on boys is an attack on the human race. And the boys and men who are particularly singled out by the feminist schools and entertainment industry are white boys and white men; so it’s an attack on the white race and Western civilization, on their very ability to survive.

Here is Nemko’s article:



January 24, 2008—IN the early 1980s, men and women earned an equal proportion of college degrees. Today, however, women attain 135 degrees for every 100 that men do, the National Center for Education Statistics recently reported. By 2016, it’ll be 162 to 100.

Since good jobs increasingly require a degree, that disparity portends disaster for men. And a disaster for half our population is a disaster for everyone.

Why the lack of male college graduates? One main reason is that K-12 education has been made girl-friendly at the expense of boys:

  • Competition, a prime motivator for boys, has largely been replaced by “cooperative learning.”

  • Readings about adventure and heroism are giving way to tales of relationships and heroines.

  • Social studies now stress men’s ill-doings and women’s (and minorities’) contributions.

Today, 91 percent of elementary-school teachers are women, the highest level on record. The main male role model most boys see in school is the custodian.

So it shouldn’t surprise us that a University of Michigan study found that the number of boys who say they don’t like school rose 71 percent from 1980 to 2001.

When boys get home, the lack of positive male role models and the assault on their self-esteem continues: TV portrays most men as buffoons or sleaze bags shown up by wise, confident women.

So is it any surprise that boys, more active than girls from birth, misbehave more in class? In decades past, they were simply called “active” and allowed to work off energy as the blackboard monitor or sent on an errand. Today, they’re more likely to be put on Ritalin. Over the last 20 years, the number of boys drugged with stimulants to control “hyperactivity” has risen 3,000 percent.

It hasn’t done much good. Boys’ reading achievement has fallen well behind girls’. Boys are 21/2 times as likely to drop out of high school, 51/2 times as likely to commit suicide and, as mentioned, far less likely to earn a college degree. In the ’60s, when more men than women obtained degrees, massive efforts were undertaken to redress the imbalance. Yet now, when men suffer the deficit, little is being done.

What should be done?

The media now take inordinate care to ensure that women and minorities are not unfairly portrayed negatively. Equal care must now be devoted to boys and men.

Schools claim to celebrate diversity yet insist on providing one-size-fits-all, girl-centric education. Whether in co-ed or single-sex classes, boys need boy-friendly instruction: more non-feminized male teachers, more competition, praise for boldness, more active learning (for example, simulation and drama) and less seatwork, less relationship-centric fiction and more how-to books.

Importantly, teachers must accept that boys will, on average, wiggle more than girls—and that it doesn’t require ongoing criticism—which, not surprisingly, leads to more oppositional behavior, to the school psychologist, to Ritalin or to special education.

Ironically, educated parents often do especially badly by boys. The college curriculum and the media consumed by the intelligentsia stress women’s’ accomplishments and men’s evils. So these parents too often feel justified in squeezing the maleness out of boys.

Of course, I’m not advocating that parents or teachers allow junior to become a savage. But we must realize that aggressiveness, bravery and competitiveness, channeled wisely, can be the stuff of which greatness is made.

We can refine but rarely remold, so we must honor males’ ways of being, just as we’ve been urged now for decades to honor females’. Apart from the effect on society, so many unnecessarily unhappy and underperforming children is, in itself, most sad. Over the past 20 years, I’ve noticed a dramatic shift in the boys I’ve counseled.

Twenty years ago, most were confident and ambitious. Now, disproportionately, they’re despondent or angry. The girls, by contrast, more often feel the world is their oyster. And they’re right—but it should be both genders’ oyster.

Boys advocate Joe Manthey reminds us that “when girls were behind in math and science, we said there’s something wrong with the schools. But now, when boys don’t do well in school, we say there’s something wrong with the boy.”

Let’s stop blaming the boy and start fixing our media, parenting and schools.

- end of initial entry -

Terry Morris writes:

I couldn’t agree more. Very well said!

Harry Horse writes:

Regarding Nemko’s article: Posted on the Free Republic with directional credit to your blog. Thank you. This should direct some traffic to your site, I hope you don’t mind. I was surprised that Nemko’s article hadn’t been posted, as this is a “red meat” topic that Freepers go for in spades.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

I wonder if you have you read Christina Hoff Summers’ The War Against Boys? Summers is not a per se traditionalist, but I found the book to be useful in its way.

LA replies:

I haven’t read it.

Jeanne A. writes:

I am the mother of two young boys and I homeschool them. My impetus for doing so was brought about by my exposure to a large group of women who were studying to be elementary education teachers while I was in college. I encountered a group of largely illiterate people, unable to spell well or write well, or even think through argument. Many were angry, complaining that the “system” was against them. Some were even emotionally unstable, as they would swap stories during free-time about their anti-depressants and anti-anxieties pills and what worked best for them. Some were well-meaning, but would quite obviously accept what they were taught and do nothing more than continue the same system that is quite obviously broken. It was at this point that I began researching public schools and discovered that besides the falling academic standards and teaching to the lowest common denominator, there exists a systematic bias against boys in the school system. The public education system is a broken down mess of socialist, leftist propaganda filtered through the lens of political correctness and political bureaucracy whose purpose I believe still follows the philosophy of its modern founder, John Dewey, the socialist, who desired that the secular collective be raised about the theistic individual to serve the purpose of the state. Professor Richard Weaver summed it up well in his essay entitled: “The Role of Education in Shaping Our Society.” He said: “One of the great heresies of the followers of John Dewey is that they saw, and still do see, education as primarily political. The evidence of this damning proposition is that they tried to make the schools not the means of handing down the traditional knowledge and wisdom of our civilization but political instrumentalities for the constituting of a different kind of society.”

Our children are the most precious gift God has given us and my husband and I realized that to send our sons to a public school would be throwing them to the lions and would be little more than sacrificing them to the causes of the secular, leftist state. We couldn’t do that and be able to sleep at night. So, I teach them. They starting learning to read when they were almost four and in every subject they are anywhere from 1 to 4 grades levels ahead of their public school counterparts of the same age. They receive a classical based education that emphasizes the trivium. They are given time during the day to run off their energy and often play “Achilles and Patroclus” as my seven year old calls it. He has enlisted his little brother to be Patroclus and they spend their time fashioning toy swords to break down the walls of Troy and “defeat the enemy!” as they loudly proclaim. I chuckle sadly when I realize that such play on a public schoolyard would probably get them expelled and/or sentenced to sensitivity training.

Anyway, this post of yours struck a chord with me. I would recommend to anyone who wants to know more about the failings and dangers of the modern public school system to check out the works of John Taylor Gatto, a former award winner public school teacher who pulls no punches in describing the broken system that exists today. I am convinced that one of the greatest things that parents can do for their children is to keep them out of the public schools.

Laura W. writes:

One cringes to think of the phony and ineffective innovations that will be introduced into school curricula as a result of the growing awareness of the “war on boys.” So ingrained is the belief that feminine qualities are superior to male, that any “fix” can only occur on the most superficial level, failing to convince boys they are not being further manipulated. Besides, once you start pointing to male accomplishments throughout history, the evidence that these overwhelmingly exceed the public accomplishments of women can no longer be ignored. The effort would have to be abandoned unless there is a profound change in the way their respective accomplishments are viewed.

The school curricula are not the sole, or even the most important, source of the problem. The lives of boys have changed dramatically outside school. Boys spend much of their time playing computer and video games. These are so addictive they leave little appetite for anything else. Girls are not drawn to these games in the same way. Computer and video games have revolutionized parenting, providing a source of cheap and convenient babysitting. They are not likely to be curbed anytime soon because they serve the interests of parents.

It may fly in the face of common sense, but boys actually need their mothers in their younger years. In my experience, boys are more traumatized than girls by day care and long days away from their mothers. Girls are too, but you’ll often find the children who cry the most when their mothers leave are the little boys. Also, when boys were in institutionalized care less, they spent more of their young years playing and roughhousing. I think their ennui and withdrawal starts in these years and then proceeds until by high school, they don’t have much other than their games. I know many boys who have become profoundly depressed. But to say it’s simply because the schools aren’t focusing on male heroes is only to scratch the surface of the problem.

An Indian living in the West writes:

There is a lot of speculation about the problem but there doesn’t appear to be a semblance of a solution. I doubt if there is a solution but one has to try. Getting the government out of education would be an excellent starting point. Of course, the government doesn’t run the media and the media still poisons everything but at least getting the government out of schooling would throw open the system to more competition and, hopefully, give choices to parents who want their children schooled differently.

Also, let us be clear on what this war is about. It is not on boys per se. It is on white boys. This goes back to the liberal prejudice against all things white male and it blends nicely into their hatred of the traditional West. Also, your post is an excellent summary of the kind of resentment that defines the Gynococracy. I know, I know—not all women are like that. But the political liberation of women has had consequences for education (particularly if you look at that statistic—91 percent of all school teachers are women).

Perhaps a separate entry is required for the poisoning of the universities. But that’s for some other time.

Mark K. writes:

BTW the comments I made about Bill as the thrust of Hillary’s campaign coincidentally ties in with the Nemko article you cite concerning the role of males. For Hillary to succeed on her own terms means that a male has to recede…

Ed writes:

In addition to our school system there is the biochemical influence of the industrial compounds which are taken into the system. Almost all industrial chemicals mimic estrogen when introduced to the human system. In addition much of our food additives also have a feminizing influence on the body and this includes products like soy milk. In addition we are being propagandize to avoid meat and animal products in favor of vegetarianism. The normal food for humans over the last one million years has been primarily meat, animal fat and some berries and herbs, but the diet was over 90% animal food. This shift from what is our natural biological food to a predominant veggie existence is another part of the war against western civilization. To learn more go to this.

Marty Nemko writes:

Thanks for the kind words about my op-ed, Battling for Boys: How Schools Stifle Our Sons. I of course worry about the emasculation of men in American society. But when I try to write about that, I am censored at every turn. In the major media, feminists have veto power over what to publish, and if it’s pro-man, you’re dead. The only way to get them to publish a pro-male article or book is to play on their maternal instincts. Some of those women have sons, and their love of their sons will soften them enough to allow publication of a pro-boy piece. One other comment. I agree with Lawrence Auster that the feminization of men extends well beyond boys. For example, the workplace has become feminized. Men who prefer individual rather than team/consensus decisionmaking are increasingly viewed as macho and anti-female. In fact, team-based decision making usually results in much wasted time in the service of a lowest-common-denominator decision. And dare a man—like the great inventors and scientists—wish to do their work primarily solo rather than in teams, he is increasingly viewed as Neanderthal. While advantages accrue as the result of team efforts, many people, especially men, know they’ll produce a better product because they needn’t be bogged down by endless meetings and waiting for the other team members to do their part. And they find much greater motivation knowing it’s THEIR product. Few authors, for example, I believe would produce as much good work if it was required that all books have five authors.

Richard B. writes:

We know what we want in our boys, but who’s going to teach it to them? The institutions for the preservation and dissemination of important knowledge and skills are under attack. The Boy Scouts, the miltary, the family fathers.

For an insight into how people are thinking on this subject, read the reviews at Amazon for:

“The Dangerous Book for Boys” … # 47 on Amazon book sales.

and “The Daring Book For Girls”… # 76 on Amazon book sales.

Below is the only one star ( lowest ) review for the “Boys” book.

“Move over James Frey and make room next to A Million Little Pieces. Here is the biggest literary scam of the year. This thing has been on the best sellers list forever, why? I’m sure the “boys” didn’t put it there. No, parents out of a real sense of duty to their boys (or girls) have bought this book by the millions to.. What? get them back to normal? Back in fighting form? Back to Huck and Tom shape? I do believe the art of being a boy might be getting lost. But contrary to restoring that “art” this book seeks to cover it in several layers of eggshell white.

Sure there is a neat page on trip wires but where are the animal traps? They mention a Swiss Army Knife but not the finer points of rope, twine and string. Wrapping things in brown paper? Yes. Making a boomerang? No!!. Poems? Yes. Slingshot? No. Shakespeare, Marbling paper? Yes, Yes. Lassos, sharpening a knife? No and No. Grinding an calligraphy pen nib (ohhh Dangerous!) making a kite? Nope too scary I guess. I can’t wait for the second volume, sure to contain such dangerous activities as “poaching an egg”, “creasing trousers” and (gasp) “re-potting orchids”. What is the world coming to when a book with “Dangerous” in it’s title doesn’t even tell you how to start a camp fire?

Buy your son or daughter a good knife, and a copy of FM 21-76 the US Army Survival Manual.. It’s cheaper in the end and far, far more useful..

Boys (and Girls) ought to have a bit of dangerous knowledge. If you don’t teach it to them. They’ll just pick it up on the streets! Or worse yet from this book, which I think was based on a Noël Coward play.. “

James W. writes:

If girls think the world is their oyster, they should think again. Without a strong and confident male population, there will be no world for them to thrive in, and no strong presence to keep bad actors off them, since they are raising both the bad actors and the passive bystanders.

A few years ago I witnessed a female scientist, triple-gloved, remove a two gram container of testosterone from a refrigerator using metal tongs. As she held it up, like poison, she explained that any male could hold this in his fingers, but that the result of her doing so would be catastrophic.

It has been catastrophic.

Bill Carpenter writes:

Great discussion. I think there is an analogy between the liberals’ uniting of our society around the destruction of the white male and the Nazis’ uniting of German society around the destruction of Germany’s Jews. In both cases it is a form of cannibalizing an essential part of society (based on scapegoating) that leads to national suicide, or is even a form of national suicide. We need to combat it without endorsing equal treatment as the ultimate value in human society, but rather endorsing appropriate treatment for people’s proper roles—i.e. using their God-given talents—in a properly ordered society.

Readers might find Frederick Turner’s epic poem The New World (1985) applicable. In the 24th century, the U.S. has dissolved into self-governing semi-rural, semi-industrial martial “counties,” and urban “riots” that survive by terrorizing the “burbs.” The boys who will grow up to lead the Free Counties will not be products of an education system that disparages male valor. (A traditionalist will be skeptical of the multiculturalism that governs Turner’s Free Counties and his anti-fundamentalist portrait of the Black Counties, but the book still has much to recommend it, including the series of Supreme Court decisions that have led to the dissolution of American society.)

Dimitri K. writes:

It seems to me that our society is like a pendulum, it vibrates between Liberalism and Conservatism, between Ptriarchat and Feminism, between Democracy and Monarchy. Now it has reached its limits in Liberalism and Feminism and it seems that it started gaining some consevative momentum. That is good.

However, what troubles me, is what particular kind of conservatism it will arrive into? When Christianity is in crisis, Islam is standing there and waiting for our society to arrive into its conservative state. Islam is also a conservatism, and some conservatives are ready to embrace Islam. It is already proposed by some, and I saw advertisements in Chicago streets that Islam is solution to crime. I wish I was wrong, but this possibility bothers me.

Mark K. writes:

Concerning the attack on boys (and by extension on men). I said in an e-mail to you that an attack on men is by extension an attack on God: “Suppressing the male boy as you said is suppressing the male man, and suppressing the male man is suppressing God.”

Here is an interesting verse from the New Testament (1 Corinthians 6:9-11):

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

There appears to be a curious redundency—“nor effeminate, nor homosexuals.” Why the redundency?

My guess is that the word “effeminate” means any lessening of the male identity, the feminization of the male authority (and self-confidence) as vested in man by God as shown in the creation (male first, female second). Usually people think Paul is describing heaven and hell in this verse (who gets in and who doesn’t) but he is actually describing what characteristics of man’s nature are destined for, because they are aspects of, the kingdom of God (which may be in heaven but also resides in one’s mind, one’s soul and one’s spirit now, today).

Thus the kingdom of God is experienced by and is an expression of men who express the essence of masculinity as created by God. In effect an education system and an entertainment media that work to undermine the masculinity of men is working to undo the glory of God and therefore is a fight against God.

Given that we have an educational system that emphasizes Darwinian evolution (our origins) at the expense of God, and the emasculation of males (at the expense of his creation of and investiture in us as males of his authority), then this at base may be the marks of a society in deep struggle against God. My guess is that a society that adheres to Darwinian evolution will invariably become an effeminate society. Maybe useful to see how far this confluence goes. In fact what does an effeminate, Darwinian society do against a foe such as Islam (e.g., England today)? It has no internal resources to combat an external enemy. Think of Woody Allen leading the charge against Mohammed Atta.

James M. writes:

I want to recycle a bit of an e-mail I previously sent to Steve Sailer:

“Maybe I watch too much TV, but am I the only person who has noticed that all TV commercial writers seem to be bound by the same unbreakable script commandment? In any commercial which features a white married couple, the wife must always be highly intelligent and the ruler of the household. She has everything under control, and is controlling of everything. She always has to tell the husband what to buy or how to do something. She will shrug her shoulders, shake her head, smile, and resign herself to continue tolerating his incompetence. The husband must always be making mistakes so he can be set straight by the wife. He will purchase the wrong internet service, set himself on fire, fall off ladders, use the wrong cleaning product, etc. He is a buffon and basically serves no purpose in the household.

“The wife does the taxes on the computer while the husband, outside the window, is running away from a swarm of bees.

“This commercial template goes beyond being a trend; it is how every single white commercial couple is portrayed. The only deviation I’ve seen is in cases where the couple is non-white. In commercials where the couple is black, I’ve witnessed the husband having his act together and the wife can be in the wrong.”

Now that you have me thinking about this issue again, I’m realizing that the situation is even more frightening. These commercials that I’m referring to are targeted at couples who graduated from High School 10, 15, and 20 years ago. How will the media treat men when the current crop of high-schoolers are in their 30s?

Mark K. sends the famous Rolling Stone cover with the photo of a nude John Lennon curled in fetal position against his wife Yoko Ono, and writes:

This may be the most disgusting picture I have ever come across (I have remembered it since it came out). It summarizes liberal society perfectly for me. An emasculated man, clinging like an ape, in almost a childish position, to a foreign woman. John Lennon of course attached to Yoko Ono. BTW has anybody noticed that today’s male hero for kids is a junior lookalike of John Lennon—Harry Potter?

A. Zarkov writes:

At one time the Vikings were fierce warriors attacking, plundering and settling much of northern Europe. From Wikipedia:

“According to custom, all free Norse men were required to own weapons, as well as permitted to carry them at all times. These arms were also indicative of a Viking’s social status. A wealthy Viking would have a complete ensemble of a helmet, shield, chainmail shirt, and animal-skin coat, among various other armaments. A lesser off man, however, could only afford a single weapon, and perhaps a shield.”

Today the Scandinavian countries must rank as some of the most feminized, passive, and politically correct countries on earth. In 2006 new rules came into force in Norway mandating minimum “gender representation” on company boards came into force. This government edict directed at private sector corporations essentially says “Make sure at least 40% of your board is female or we [the government] will put you out of business.” These rules impose a significant burden on business as there is a shortage of qualified women to take these positions.

What happened to our Vikings? I confess that I don’t really know, except I strongly suspect it has something to do with the decreasing levels of testosterone we find in men over the last 30 years.

LA replies:

If there is decreasing testosterone, I’m sure it’s a symptom of all the things that have been discussed here, not a cause.

Bruce B. writes:

Your entry on the war on boys was very appropriate and very valuable.

There are some traditional institutions our sons can take refuge in . The Boy Scouts are still alive and well.

Some traditional churches still provide a model for chivalric manhood. For example, some conservative Lutherans do not allow women to hold any office where they would have any authority over men, period. The men use their authority to love and serve their mothers, wives and daughters. And in some traditional Anglican churches, boys and only-boys, can serve our Lord as an Acolyte. My seven-year-old son is just starting to be trained by an older man in the church. We have to find these refuges from modernity and support them.

And as one of your correspondents indicated, boys need David and Daniel, Achilles and Hector, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Beowulf, el Cid, Roland. If we don’t cultivate a love for our inheritance, we’re going to lose it. No time for video games and pop-culture, period. Laura’s right. Lots of boys and even “men” spend enormous amounts of time twiddling their thumbs with these things.

And as Jeanne A. indicates, homeschooling is a very important part of all this for many of this. The enemies of our civilization seem overwhelming in number and force, but if one family at a time, we get our lives in order, I believe we’ll prevail.

I’m also a believer in large families and thrift/pennypinching as a virtue and lifestyle.

Kevin S. writes:

I write to you today about the Boy Scouts of America. I am an Eagle Scout and have been involved with BSA in many capacities for as long as I can remember. My father has also been involved his whole life and is himself a Silver Beaver; given for 25 years of distinguished service. My son is an Eagle, has served on various camp staffs, was a member of our council expeditionary crew sent to Micronesia and Palau last year, and has been to national advanced leadership at Philmont. My wife is as involved with Cub Scouts as I am with Scouts. We are a scouting family.

I was set to participate as a wood badge staff member this spring. Upon reviewing the additions to the course material, I withdrew from the position. (Wood badge is the highest level of adult leadership training offered by BSA.) In addition I will not again wear my wood badge beads or neckerchief awarded upon successful completion of the course and achievements which must be accomplished in within the 18 months following it.

As a troop guide one of the questions I would have been asking was, “Why is immigration good for the United States.” The course is now riddled with pro-immigration and pro-diversity nonsense such as this. However, the thing that tore it for me was the changing of the name of a troop position from Chaplain’s Aide to Religious Advisor. I inquired up to national what motivated the name change. I was told the former name sounded too “Christian” and could be exclusionary to members of other faiths!

Since what is today the BSA first came to this country in 1910 it has been inextricably linked to Christianity and Christian ideals. Those ideals are not simply good and happen to be also found in Christianity; they are good BECAUSE they come directly from our Lord! Any attempt to divorce and distance the message and ideals from their Author is ill advised at best and I for one will not be a party to it. As our civilization continues to drift further from the greatness we once had, BSA continues to become more of a babysitting organization than the elite training organization for elite boys it once was. This nation was never in more desperate need of honorable and virtuous leaders. Where will they come from now?

Bobby writes:

I’m shocked that nobody mentioned the demographic causes for the problems with boys. In the 1960’s this country was 85% white, now its about 65% white, with the elementary school population around 50% white. The war on boys is essentially a war on white boys. Blacks and Latinos are still as aggressive and controlling, maybe more so, then they ever were before. Its just their aggressiveness is not channeled into salubrious and productive enterprises like child-rearing, holding a steady job, being law-abiding, and remaining monogamous. Instead their aggressiveness is channeled into a zeitgeist which naturally feeds into a deleterious cycle of gang-violence, crime, illegitimacy, and all the pernicious consequences affiliated with minority “culture”, where there is definitely no lack of testosterone. The demographic trend has only made boys failures more noticeable. The gap between black women who graduate college and black men is far more pronounced then the white one. Coincidence? I think not.

Hannon writes:

Perhaps the longer term goal or effect here is to neutralize sex roles altogether. The feminists seem to have the upper hand in some ways today but ultimately our masculinity and femininity are both a threat to the ascendancy of humanism. What better way to achieve this than first displacing the role of girls and women (1960s onward) and now the role of boys and men in society, to the extent that discrete gender has significance. That is, to a very small extent, we are told. The expression of associative gender or sexuality—unless it is oppressed and perverse—can be seen as the last bastion of inequality.

Kilroy M. writes from Australia:

Dimitri K writes that society “has reached its limits in Liberalism and Feminism and it seems that it started gaining some consevative momentum.” I’d like to know what society he’s referring to (other than the coloured world about whose traditionalism the Western liberal transnationalists don’t seem to mind, funnily enough). I’m ready to pack and move.

As for the war on boys and masculinity in general, and since some readers have mentioned a few books of interest on this and related topics, the following may also be added to what has already been recommended:

1. Steve Jones, Y—The Descent of Men, Little Brown (2002)
2. Deborah Cadbury, Altering Eden—The Feminisation of Nature, St Martin’s Press (1977)
3. Yves Christen (trn: Nicholas Davidson), Sex Differences—Modern Biology and the Unisex Fallacy, Transaction (1993)
4. Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide, Scott-Townsend (1992)
5. Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, A Natural History of Rape—Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, MIT Press (2000)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 27, 2008 09:03 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):